You may say this is not ruinious, but it still seems messed up ( especially considering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polychlorinated_biphenyl#Health_effects ht

You may say this is not ruinious, but it still seems messed up ( especially considering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polychlorinated_biphenyl#Health_effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polychlorinated_biphenyl#Healt... ) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investor-state_dispute_settlement#Examples https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investor-state_dispute_settlem... > Between 1995 and 1997 the Canadian government banned the export of toxic PCB waste, in order to comply with its obligations under the Basel Convention, of which the United States is not a party. Waste treatment company S.D. Myers then sued the Canadian government under NAFTA Chapter 11 for $20 millions in damages. The claim was upheld by a NAFTA Tribunal in 2000 And there's more: https://www.policyalternatives.ca/publications/reports/nafta-chapter-11-investor-state-disputes-january-1-2015 https://www.policyalternatives.ca/publications/reports/nafta... > Canada has been the target of over 70% of all NAFTA claims since 2005. Currently, Canada faces nine active claims challenging a wide range of government measures that allegedly interfere with the expected profitability of foreign investments. Foreign investors are seeking over $6 billion in damages from the Canadian government. These include challenges to a ban on fracking by the Quebec provincial government and a decision by a Canadian federal court to invalidate a pharmaceutical patent on the basis that it was not sufficiently innovative or useful. So I wonder: did you actually have a look yourself and came up empty, or do these examples somehow not fit the bill? I'm not claiming to be up to speed on this stuff, maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree here.